فصل‌نامه پژوهش‌های کاربردی روانشناختی

بررسی اثر هم‌زمانی رفتاری بر انتخاب جبران در تصمیم‌گیری ترتیبی نوجوانان و جوانان

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه توان‌بخشی شناختی، پژوهشکدۀ علوم شناختی و مغز، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه علوم شناختی، پژوهشکدۀ علوم شناختی و مغز، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه هوش ماشین و رباتیک دانشکدۀ مهندسی برق و کامپیوتر، دانشکدۀ فنی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی اثر هم‌زمانی رفتاری بر جبران در تصمیم‌گیری ترتیبی افراد 15 تا 25 سال انجام گرفت. پژوهش براساس هدف، بنیادی و برحسب گردآوری اطلاعات از نوع مطالعات نیمه‌آزمایشی با طرح بین‌گروهی بود. جامعۀ مطالعه را کلیۀ دانشجویان شهر تهران و دانشآموزان متوسطۀ شهر قیر واقع در استان فارس، شهرستان قیروکارزین در سال 1401-1400 تشکیل دادند که از بین آن‌ها به‌صورت دردسترس 144 نفر (95 زن، 48 مرد و 1 سایر) به‌عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. ابزارهای پژوهش شامل تکلیف کالای عمومی ترتیبی با ساختار نقطۀ تأمین step-level PGG، تکلیف هم‌زمانی رفتاری حرکت دست و مقیاس وحدت بود. روش تحلیل داده‌ها کروسکال-والیس، خی‌دو و رگرسیون میانجی بود که با استفاده از آنها روابط علی متغیرهای پژوهش بررسی شد. تحلیل دادهها با نرم‌افزارهای Python 3.8 و SPSS-27 صورت پذیرفت. یافته‌ها نشان داد هم‌زمانی رفتاری برافزایش جبران در تصمیم‌گیری ترتیبی اثری ندارد، اما وحدت بین افراد را تقویت می‌کند. سپس وحدت به‌طور غیرمستقیم به‌دلیل اثرگذاری بر ادراک شرکت‌کنندگان از میزان مشارکت شریکشان (05/0 > p)، همکاری را افزایش می‌دهد (01/0 > p). همچنین مطابق یافتهها، تمایل به جبران در اوایل بزرگسالی بیش از اواخر نوجوانی است. نتایج بیانگر این بود که هم‌زمانی رفتاری راهی برای ایجاد وحدت بین‌فردی است و از این طریق ادراک افراد از چگونگی رفتار یکدیگر را تغییر و رفتار جامعه‌پسند را گسترش می‌دهد. این اثر از اواخر نوجوانی تا اوایل بزرگسالی ثابت است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Behavioral Synchrony on Choosing Compensation in Adolescents and Adults’ Decision-Making

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fatemeh Ebrahimi 1
  • Khatereh Borhani 2
  • Abdol-Hossein Vahabie 3

1 Department of Cognitive Rehabilitation, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assiatant Professor, Department of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Machine Intelligence and Robotics and computer, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of behavioral synchrony on compensation in sequential decision-making among individuals aged 15 to 25. The purpose of this research was critical, and the procedure was a semi-experimental study with a between-group design. The study population included all university students of Tehran City and all high school students of Ghir Town, Ghir-and-Karzin Township, Fars Province in 2021-2022. The available sampling method was employed to select 144 students (95 females, 48 males, and one other) as samples. The provision of a step-level public goods game (step-level PGG), tapping synchrony, and entitativity scale were among the research instruments. The data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared, and regression analysis of mediation. SPSS-27 and Python 3.8 were employed to analyze the data. The results indicated that behavioral synchrony does not influence compensation; however, it enhances entitativity. Subsequently, entitativity indirectly enhanced cooperation by influencing the perception of their partner’s donation among participants. Additionally, the results indicated that the propensity to compensate was more prevalent in early maturity than in late adolescence. In conclusion, the findings suggested that behavioral synchrony is a method for fostering entitativity and influences individuals’ perceptions of the intentions of others to promote prosocial behavior. From late adolescence to early adulthood, this effect persisted.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Behavioral Synchrony
  • Compensation
  • Entitativity
  • Sequential Decision-Making
عباسپور، ذ.، و قنبری، ز. (1397). بررسی اثر مستقیم و غیرمستقیم تبعیض جنسیتی بر رضایت زناشویی با میانجی‌گری ادراک انصاف. فصل‌نامه پژوهش‌های کاربردی روانشناختی. 9(4)، 140-127. https://doi.org/10.22059/japr.2019.71006
مجدآبادی فراهانی، ز.، شهرآرای، م.، داورپناه، ف.، و جوادی، س.، ی. (1393). بافت مدرسه، هویت و رفتارهای مشکل‌آفرین در اوائل نوجوانی. فصل‌نامه پژوهش‌های کاربردی روانشناختی. 5(3)، 190-173. https://www.magiran.com/paper/1374055
References
Abbaspour, Z., & Ghanbari, Z. (2019). The study of the direct and indirect effect of sexism on marital satisfaction mediation with perceived aquity. Journal of Applied Psychological Research, 9(4), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.22059/japr.2019.71006 (In Persian)
Almås, I., Cappelen, A. W., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2010). Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science, 328(5982), 1176–1178. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187300
Arora, P., Logg, J., & Larrick, R. (2016). Acting for the greater good: Identification with group determines choices in sequential contribution dilemmas. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1892
Baranowski-Pinto, G., Profeta, V. L. S., Newson, M., Whitehouse, H., & Xygalatas, D. (2022). Being in a crowd bonds people via physiological synchrony. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04548-2
Carnes, N. C., & Lickel, B. (2018). Moral binding: How emotions, convictions, and identity fusion shape progroup behavior. Self and Identity, 17(5), 549-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1451362
Chernyak, N., Leimgruber, K. L., Dunham, Y. C., Hu, J., & Blake, P. R. (2019). Paying back people who harmed us but not people who helped us: Direct negative reciprocity precedes direct positive reciprocity in early development. Psychological Science, 30(9), 1273–1286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619854975
Chvaja, R., Kundt, R., & Lang, M. (2020). The effects of synchrony on group moral hypocrisy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.544589
Corbit, J., Dockrill, M., Hartlin, S., & Moore, C. (2022). Intuitive cooperators: Time pressure increases children's collective decisions in a modified public goods game. Developmental Science, 26(4), e13344. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13344
Cross, L., Atherton, G., Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2017). Imagined steps: Mental simulation of coordinated rhythmic movements effects on pro-sociality. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 01798. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01798
Cross, L., Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2016). How moving together brings us together: When coordinated rhythmic movement affects cooperation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 01983. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01983
Dawes, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 111–116. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/002075900399402
Englander, Z. A., Haidt, J., & Morris, J. P. (2012). Neural basis of moral elevation demonstrated through inter-subject synchronization of cortical activity during free-viewing. PloS One, 7(6), e39384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039384
Erev, I., & Rapoport, A. (1990). Provision of step-level public goods: The sequential contribution mechanism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(3), 401-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002790034003002
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02043
Fisher, S. A., & Mandel, D. R. (2021). Risky-choice framing and rational decision-making. Philosophy Compass, 16(8), e12763. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12763
Fujiwara, K., Nomura, K., & Eto, M. (2023). Antiphase synchrony increases perceived entitativity and uniqueness: A joint hand-clapping task. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1069660. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1069660
Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2010). Sequential vs. simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7–8), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.03.002
Gutiérrez-Roig, M., Gracia-Lázaro, C., Perelló, J., Moreno, Y., & Sánchez, A. (2014). Transition from reciprocal cooperation to persistent behaviour in social dilemmas at the end of adolescence. Nature Communications, 5, 4362. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5362
Guzmán, A., Villegas-Palacio, C., & Wollbrant, C. (2013). Social information and charitable giving: An artefactual field experiment with young children and adolescents (Working Paper No. 564). University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/32625
Haken, H., Kelso, J. A. S., & Bunz, H. (1985). A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological Cybernetics, 51, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00336922
Harbaugh, W. T., & Krause, K. (2000). Children’s contributions in public good experiments: The development of altruistic and free-riding behaviors. Economic Inquiry, 38(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2000.tb00006.x
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (1st ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Link
Lakens, D. (2010). Movement synchrony and perceived entitativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 701-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.015
Lakens, D., & Stel, M. (2011). If they move in sync, they must feel in sync: Movement synchrony leads to attributions of rapport and entitativity. Social Cognition, 29(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.1.1
Launay, J., Tarr, B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Synchrony as an adaptive mechanism for large‐scale human social bonding. Ethology, 122(10), 779–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12528
Majdabadi Farahani, Z., Shahraray, M., Davarpanah, F., & Javadi, S. Y. (2014). School context, identity and problem behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Psychological Research. 5(3), 173-190. https://www.magiran.com/paper/1374055/ (In Persian)
Mogan, R., Fischer, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2017). To be in synchrony or not? A meta-analysis of synchrony’s effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.009
Postmes, T., Baray, G., Haslam, S. A., Morton, T. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2006). The dynamics of personal and social identity formation. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 215–236). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211946.n12
Rapoport, A. (1985). Provision of public goods and the MCS experimental paradigm. American Political Science Review, 79(1), 148-155. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956124
Rapoport, A. (1987). Research paradigms and expected utility models for the provision of step-level public goods. Psychological Review, 94(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.74
Reinero, D. A., Dikker, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1-2), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa135
Rennung, M., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). Prosocial consequences of interpersonal synchrony: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224(3), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000252
Schunk, D., & Zipperle, I. (2023). Fairness and inequality acceptance in children and adolescents: A survey on behaviors in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(5), 1715-1742. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12553
Shaw, A., Barakzai, A., & Keysar, B. (2019). When and why people evaluate negative reciprocity as more fair than positive reciprocity. Cognitive Science, 43(8), e12773. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/cogs.12773
Van de Kragt, A. J., Orbell, J. M., & Dawes, R. M. (1983). The minimal contributing set as a solution to public goods problems. American Political Science Review, 77(1), 112-122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956014
Wan, Y., & Zhu, L. (2022). Understanding the effects of rhythmic coordination on children's prosocial behaviours. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2282. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2282
Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02253.x
Zlobina, A., & Dávila, M. C. (2022). Preventive behaviours during the pandemic: The role of collective rituals, emotional synchrony, social norms and moral obligation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(4), 1332-1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12539
فصل‌نامه پژوهش‌های کاربردی روانشناختی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 10 دی 1404
  • تاریخ دریافت: 06 تیر 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 26 مرداد 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 22 شهریور 1402
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 04 آذر 1403
  • تاریخ انتشار: 10 دی 1404